Table Of Content

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW LEGAL PROCESS MATERIALS 2002 PROF. JENNIFER L. SCHULZ VOLUME I UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW LEGAL PROCESS MATERIALS 2002 PROF. JENNIFER L. SCHULZ VOLUME I /• Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/legalprocessmate01schu UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FACULTY OF LAW PROF. JENNIFER L. SCHULZ LEGAL PROCESS MATERIALS 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab A M. MacGuigan, “What Do We Want From the Law?” N. Cowdery, “The Rule of Law” K. Scott, “Two Models of the Civil Process” F. Kafka, “The Problem of Our Laws” K. Roach, “Teaching Procedures: The Fiss/Weinrib Debate in Practice” TabB S. Ginsberg, “Legal Services Plans in the Year 2020” J. McCamus, “The Reshaping of Legal Aid” Tab C Canadian Court Structure Ontario Court Structure B. Wilson, “Decision-Making in the Supreme Court” G. Gall, “The Doctrines of Precedent and Stare Decisis” K. Llewellyn, “The Bramble Bush” G. Gall, “The Rules and Principles of Statutory Interpretation” L. Fuller, “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers” Tab D M. Mossman, “Feminism and the Legal Method: The Difference it Makes” P. McIntosh, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” R. Devlin, “We Can’t Go On Together With Suspicious Minds” R. v. Jack and Charlie L. Mandell, “Native Culture on Trial” C. Schmitz, “Intervenors Set Record” EGALE Fact Sheet, “Ontario Same-Sex Marriage Decision” S. Schmidt, “Legislature or Judiciary? Ruling Reviews Debate” C. Clark, “Ottawa to Appeal Same-Sex Ruling” Tab E Rules of Civil Procedure 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab F An Act to Revise the Limitations Act K. Roach, “Reforming Statutes of Limitations” Tab G Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Lennox v. Arbor Memorial Services Inc. Bhadauria v. Board of Governors of Seneca College R. v. Stinchcombe Canada (Solicitor General) v. Ontario (Royal Commission of Inquiry) Tab H Smith v. Jones General Accident Assurance Company v. Chrusz et al. Tab I G. Cohen, “Another Kick at the Contingency Fee Can” J. Jaffey, “Private Member’s Bill Would Permit Contingency Fees in Ontario” Solicitors Amendment Act (Contingency Fee Agreements) McIntyre Estate v. Ontario (Attorney General) Tab J R. v. Romanowicz J. Gadd, “Regulate Paralegals, Court Tells Governments” T. Claridge, “Consensus Reached: LSUC Should Regulate Paralegals” K. Makin, “Legal Turf War: Courting the Enemy” P. Cory, “A Framework for Regulating Paralegal Practice in Ontario” LSUC, Government Relations Committee, Report to Convocation Tab K P. Edwards, “OPP, Indians Dispute Major Events in Death at Ipperwash” J. Aubry, “Slain Activist’s Family Sues Harris” P. Edwards & H. Levy, “Dead Man’s Family Seeks Ipperwash Inquiry” W. McCann, “Stiffer Ipperwash Sentence Sought” S. Eng, “Our Public Inquiries All Bite, No Teeth” M. Mittelstaedt, “Ipperwash Officer Loses Conviction Appeal” George v. Beaubien “Amnesty International Calls for a Public Inquiry into the Shooting of Dudley George” “What Does the United Nations Human Rights Committee Say about Ipperwash?” Editorial, “Mr. Harris Can’t Recall” TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab L “The Story So Far” - Walkerton Public Inquiries Act The Walkerton Inquiry and its Mandate Concerned Walkerton Citizens Home Page The Walkerton Inquiry Rules of Procedure and Practice The Walkerton Inquiry Ruling on Standing and Funding Tab M Class Proceedings Act Tab N Smith v. Walkerton Public Utilities Commission, amended Statement of Claim Letter from Attorney General to Walkerton Residents Smith v. Walkerton Public Utilities Commission, Judgment Walkerton Compensation Plan Notice of the Certification and Proposed Settlement of the Walkerton Class Action TabO K. Clark, “Class Action Litigation Now A Fact of Life for Business” G. Watson, “The RAND Study - Class Action Dilemmas” Tab P Brimner et al. v. Via Rail Canada Inc. et al. Hollickv. Toronto (City) Franklin et al. v. University of Toronto Tab Q D. Reaume & P. Macklem, “Education for Subordination: Residential Schooling” E. Anderson, “Lawyers Swoop to Cash In on Native Claims” E. Anderson, “Class Actions Expected to Grow with Residential School Claims” J. Tibbetts, “Lawyers Ban ‘Swooping In’ on Victims” Rumley v. British Columbia Tab R C. Maughan & J. Webb, “The Context of Legal Negotiation” C. Menkel-Meadow, “Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation” The Dionne Negotiation 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TabS G. Chomenki & C. Hart, “The Mediator’s Role” M. Umbreit, “The Mediation Model” D. Girard, “Teen Bully Finds Justice, Healing, & the Courage to Apologise” R. v. Moses Tab T G. Cohen, “Mandatory Mediation More Likely to Increase Costs, Not Save Money” G. Harm & C. Baar, “Evaluation of the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program” M. Fitz-Jones, “Measuring Mediation” T. Tyler, “Mediation Trend Called ‘A Concern’” A. Kerr, “Mandatory Mediation Grows in Popularity” TabU Fitzgerald & Wright, “Lawyers” “A Fresh Look at the Rules of Professional Conduct” Tab V Rules of Professional Conduct Tab W “What Happens When a Client Complains to the Law Society” Ontario Lawyers Gazette Discipline Digest J. Hennessey, “Dear Browned Off’ J. Benedet, “When the Law Society is an Ass” A. Hutchinson, “Solicitation and Advertising” A. Hutchinson, “Alternative Dispute Resolution” Tab X A. Hutchinson, “A Crisis of Ethical Proportions?” R. Abella, “Professionalism Revisited” G. MacKenzie, “Is Keeping Secrets in Client’s Best Interest?” S. Turow, “One L” W. Burger, “Lexigenesis: Law, Conflict, and the Professional Responsibility of Lawyers”